Dnia 2010-10-23, sob o godzinie 16:37 +0100, Adam D. Barratt pisze:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:47 +0200, Tomasz Rybak wrote:
> [...]
> > pyopencl.debdiff contains debbiff
> > pyopencl.gitdiff contains diff from upstream git respository
> > between version in Squeeze and proposed one.
>
> The number of whitespace removal changes in the diff make it quite noisy
> in places, fwiw.
Sorry - but I try to change original source as little as possible.
>
> + * Fixed FTBFS on i386 (Closes: #599782)
>
> This isn't actually RC, as the package has never built on i386; still
> worth fixing though.
After applying fix suggested by Jakub Wilk now it builds on i386
(I checked using pbuilder, and Evgeni Golov was able to build on
his system).
>
> - print "************************************************************"
> - print "*** I have detected that you have already run configure."
> - print "*** I'm taking the configured values as defaults for this"
> - print "*** configure run. If you don't want this, delete the file"
> - print "*** %s." % schema.get_conf_file()
> - print "************************************************************"
> + print("************************************************************")
> + print("*** I have detected that you have already run configure.")
> + print("*** I'm taking the configured values as defaults for this")
> + print("*** configure run. If you don't want this, delete the file")
> + print("*** %s." % schema.get_conf_file())
> + print("************************************************************")
>
> That won't work with python 2.6 or earlier; well, it'll work with 2.6 if
> you import it from future, but the package claims to support python 2.5
> and above. There's a bunch of other occurrences of this in the diff,
> but the rest all appear to be patched out.
Removed all 9 lines containing print.
>
> + * Forced build scripts not to use boost libraries included in the source
>
> Could you point out where that fix is in the diff? I couldn't
> immediately spot it, but might be missing something obvious.
Upstream package (available from pypi) includes Boost.
I am using source downloaded using git (debian/rules get-orig-source),
so it does not contain Boost (I do not want waste space), but I also
disabled ability to use shipped boost in case someone wants to build
using pypi source.
Here is part of the patch (d/patches/replace-setuptools.patch):
@@ -517,34 +461,8 @@
if conf["USE_SHIPPED_BOOST"]:
if not exists("bpl-subset/bpl_subset/boost/version.hpp"):
-
print("------------------------------------------------------------------------")
- print("The shipped Boost library was not found, but
USE_SHIPPED_BOOST is True.")
- print("(The files should be under bpl-subset/.)")
-
print("------------------------------------------------------------------------")
- print("If you got this package from git, you probably want
to do")
- print("")
- print(" $ git submodule init")
- print(" $ git submodule update")
- print("")
- print("to fetch what you are presently missing. If you got
this from")
- print("a distributed package on the net, that package is
broken and")
- print("should be fixed. For now, I will turn off
'USE_SHIPPED_BOOST'")
- print("to try and see if the build succeeds that way, but
in the long")
- print("run you might want to either get the missing bits or
turn")
- print("'USE_SHIPPED_BOOST' off.")
-
print("------------------------------------------------------------------------")
conf["USE_SHIPPED_BOOST"] = False
- delay = 10
-
- from time import sleep
- import sys
- while delay:
- sys.stdout.write("Continuing in %d seconds... \r" %
delay)
- sys.stdout.flush()
- delay -= 1
- sleep(1)
-
if conf["USE_SHIPPED_BOOST"]:
conf["BOOST_INC_DIR"] = ["bpl-subset/bpl_subset"]
conf["BOOST_LIB_DIR"] = []
>
> + * Switch to debhelper compat level 8; no changes necessary.
>
> That's not an appropriate change to be making at this stage.
Should I revert to 7 then?
In case of pyopencl it was only change of value in debian/compat.
>
> + * Depend on libnvidia-compiler instead of transitional libnvidia-compiler1
> + * Build-depend on nvidia-libopencl1 and khronos-opencl-headers
> + instead of nvidia-libopencl1-dev
>
> These don't correspond to the changes actually made. Both
> libnvidia-compiler and khronos-opencl-headers are added as non-default
> alternatives, rather than replacing the previous packages (which is just
> as well, given that libnvidia-compiler isn't in testing and
> khronos-opencl-headers isn't in the archive at all).
Changed to:
* Added alternative dependency to help with post-Squeeze changes
in NVIDIA driver packages
* Added alternative build-dependency on nvidia-libopencl1
and khronos-opencl-headers instead of nvidia-libopencl1-dev
which will be removed from NVIDIA driver packages after Squeeze
>
> To be entirely honest, given that the package has only ever had one
> upload (in July) and has no reverse-dependencies I'm not sure right now
> whether fixing it or removing it from testing would be the best
> solution.
I would like to fix it.
Ubuntu 10.10 contains python-pyopencl.
In scientific community GPGPU is gaining momentum (I do not have
statistical proof, but it seems when looking at articles).
IMO having at least one OpenCL implementation and supporting
libraries would make Debian more attractive.
I attach full debdiff between version in Sqeeze and propsed version,
and git diff of changes in packaging made between version
proposed previously and now.
I have only made changes in packaging, so it should be easier to analyse
git.diff.
git tree containing packaging files is on
http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/python-pyopencl.git
Best regards.
--
Tomasz Rybak <bogomips@post.pl> GPG/PGP key ID: 2AD5 9860
Fingerprint A481 824E 7DD3 9C0E C40A 488E C654 FB33 2AD5 9860
http://member.acm.org/~tomaszrybak